Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soc.history.what-if

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 05:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Soc.history.what-if

Copy of a newsgroup FAQ list. Delete as unencyclopedic textdump. Newsgroup in question does not seem more notable than the average Usenet group. jni 07:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subject (alternative history) is quite notable, however. Not-sure if W-paedia is place for FAQ list, however. --Simon Cursitor 08:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice newgroups, but not encyclopedic. Martg76 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "members of the non-existent cable". Keep - ah, now I get it (should've explained it that way in the first place). -- BD 08:49, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
Delete - prominent newsgroup but even if it would require an article, this FAQ is not it - Skysmith 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a general knowlege base. --Carnildo 19:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. SHWI is a useful newsgroup, and the new article actually gives accurate information about the forum. I'm still a little unsure of how all this works, but I orginally made the mistake of putting up the FAQ, but have now fixed it and written a short encyclopedic entry to it. SHWI is an interesting group that reminds me in a lot of ways of pre-WWI Vienna coffee houses. We've had lots of interesting folks from Profs to assistant govenors of islands discussing on our group. I think it is a very important part of alternate history, and that anyone interested in that subject would gain something by knowledge about SHWI. -anon

I'm a sometime contributor to shw-i, but it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Delete. Rick K 23:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A notable newsgroup. We have articles on other newsgroups such as alt.atheism. The language needs to be improved and there is a lot more information that should be added, but it could be a good article. Academic Challenger 03:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the original article is obviously VfD, the current article shows evidence of encyclopedic potential, and the subject of the newsgroup itself is noteworthy. I'd suggest people voting delete check back daily as the article is in flux. Fifelfoo 03:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how this is less notable than alt.usenet.kooks. NoPuzzleStranger 05:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree with NPS. PMA 06:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved enough to stay. Agree with Fifelfoo. Tobycat 06:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a subjective observer, so my vote is by no means unbiased. However, I must point out that SHWI is both a unique usenet community, and by far one of the best and the most vivid history forums in usenet. The contributors have included academic scholars, professional authors and government officials. The article will be updated still further.Jjalonen 08:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's no longer a text dump and there are articles on other newsgroups. Angus McLellan 08:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worthwhile entry for a notable newsgroup. --Sanguinus 11:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now; this compares well with others in Category:Newsgroups. Samaritan 14:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is much improved from when it was nominated. It may not be the most notable newsgroups, but according to Google it is in the top 10 of soc. Jeff8765 22:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. WP:NOT paper. —RaD Man (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a pretty big and active newsgroup as these things go. Bryan 23:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep, but with an admonishment to not have a lower notability standard for internet topics than for other things. Everyking 00:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion_policy doesn't have any notability standard for VfDs. "lack of notability" isn't listed as a reason for which a page can be listed for deletion. Bryan 03:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been much improved upon. I would have not thought SHWI notable enough but to judge by other accepted newsgroups [[1] list of newsgroups] it must meet Wiki’s encyclopedic standard. --Francis Burdett 16:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - it never should have been nominated for VfD. it should have been marked for cleanup. people need to do more research before they mark something as VfD. Kingturtle 19:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*K*E*E*P* - it would be rubbish to claim that even all remarkable newsgroups *should* have an article on wikipedia (as a matter of preference rather than toleration). To claim that one of the very few newsgroups on usenet to be a genuine cultural phenomenon far beyond it's native ambit should *not* have an article on wikipedia; is a profoundly fallacious thought. -- Cimon 03:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.